F 

685 
.693 





KciA^i^i-- cWT^^jltr^A. C<n^M^ 



yi 



'turvo 



oWfl-clu loj H 



(P^ 



(A J^jLvJtil^e^''. 









Class V Ci i'l 

Book -0/33 



KANSAS-THE LECOMrXOX COXSTITUTION. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. J: J. CRITTENDEN, 



OF ke:n^tucky. 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



MARCH 17, 1858. 



[CORRECTED BY HIMSELF.] 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & pLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

■■ 1858. 



/T\, ^ ... 



CIRCULATE THE DOCUMENTS. 



The jSTational Republican Association at AYasliington, D. C, are pre- 
pared to furnish, both to clubs and individuals, the following list of 
documents, at the rates and prices annexed: 



At 75 cents per hundred copies, envel- 
oped and free of postage. 

Hon. p. King, N. Y. : The Rights of the People 
of Kansas. 

'= E. B. Pottle, N. Y. : Kansas— The Lecomp- 
ton Constitution. 

" A. P. Granger, N. Y. : Kansas — The Le- 
compton Constitution. 

" A. B. Clin, N. Y. : Admission of Kansas. 

" G. A. GroAv, Penn. : Kansas — Lecompton 
Constitution. 

" L. S. Foster, Conn. : The Rights- of White 
Men Vindicated. 

" S. Dean, Conn. : Kansas — Slavery — The 
Lecompton Constitution. 

" J. A. Bingham, Ohio : The Lecomj^ton Con- 
spiracy. 

" J. A. Bingham, Ohio : Kansas Conference 
Bill. 

" P. Bliss, Ohio : Citizenship : State Citizen- 
ship, General Citizenship. 

» Senator Wade, Ohio : They "Stoop to Con- 
quer ; " or. The English Swindle. 

' J. R. Giddings, Ohio : The Conflict between 
Religious Truths and American Infidelity. 

" H. L. Dawes, Mass. : The Lecompton Con- j 
stitution founded neither in Law nor the | 
Will of the People. 

" E. Thayer, Mass. : The Suicide of Slavery. 
• A. Burlingame, Mass. : An Appeal to Patri- 
ots against Fraud aud Disunion. 

" J. Buffinton, Mass. : Kansas — The Lecomp- 
ton Constitution. 

" N.Abbott, Me.: The Lecompton Constitution. 

" F. H. Morse, Me. : The President's Lecomp- 
ton Message. 

" D. Kilgore, Ind.: Kansas — The Lecompton 
Constitution. 

" James Wilson, Lid. : Admission of Kansas. 

'• D. W. C. Leach, Mich. : The Amistad Case- 
Men not Recognised as Property by the 
Constitution. 

" J. Collamer, Vt. : The Kans.as Conference 
Committee Report. 

" J. J. Crittenden, Ky. : The Kansas Confer- 
ence Bill. 

" M. J. Parrott, Kansas : The Lecompton 
Constitution. 
Collamer' s Minority Report. 
Democratic Protests Against the Lecompton 

Fraud — Hon. E. P. Stanton, Hon. G. Bancroft, 
Hon. T. L. Harris, Hon. J. Hickman, Hon. R. 
J. Walker, and Governor Wise of Virginia. 
The Democratic Meeting at Philadelphia, Feb. 8, 
1858— Speech of F. P. Stanton, and Letter of 
Governor Walker. 

All orders should be addressed to 



At $1.25 per hundred copies, enveloped 
and free of postcige. 

Hon. S. A Douglas, 111. : Kansas — Lecompton 
Convention. 

J. P. Hale, N. II. : Kansas and the Supreme 
Court. 

H. Wilson, Mass. : The President's Lecomp- 
ton Jlessage. 

H. Wilson, Mass. : Are Working Men Slaves? 

J. Dixon, Conn.: Admission of Kansas. 

H. Bennett, X. Y. : Kansas and Slavery. 

R. E. Fenton, N. Y. : Designs of the Slave 
Power. 

J. Thompson, N. Y. : Admission of Kansas. 

AY. H. Seward, N. Y. : Freedom in Kansas. 

W. H. Seward, N. Y. : Closing Speech on 
the Kansas Question. 

Z. Chandler, Mich. : Kansas — Lecompton 
Constitution. 

C.Durkee,Wis.: The Lecompton Conspiracy. 

S. Colfax, Ind. : Kansas — Lecompton Con- 
stitution. 

C. Case, Ind.: President's Special Message. 

J. Bell, Tonn. : The Admission of Kansas. 
The Kansas Question — The Minority Report of 

the Committee of Fifteen. 
The Frauds in Kansas Illustrated — Hon. F. P. 
Stanton, at the Chinese Assembly Rooms, N. Y. 

At |1.75 per hundred copies, enveloped 
and free of postage. 

Hon. W. p. Fessenden, Me. : The President's 
Lecompton Message. 
'• D. Clark, X. H. : Kansas-The Law of Slavery. 

IN THE tlERMAN LANGUAGE. 

At 75 cents jjer hundred copies, envel- 
oped and free of postage. 

Hon. P. King, N.Y.: Rights of the People of Kansas. 
" J. Hickman, Pa. : Kansas — The Lecompton 
Constitution. 

At $1.25 per hmdred copies, envelo2:)ed 
and free of postage. 

Hon. S. A. Douglas, 111. : Kansas — The Lecomp- 
ton Convention. 
" W. H. Seward, N. Y. : Freedom in Kansas. 
" W. H. Seward, N. Y. : The English Bill. 
" II. Wilson, Mass. : Are Working Men Slaves. 

Hon. F. P. Blair, Mo. : The Acquisition of Cen- 
tral America. Price $2.25 per 100 copies. 

The Progress of Slavery in the United States — 
George M. Weston. Price 25 cents per cojiy, 
five copies $1, fifty copies $8 one hundred 
copies, $15. 

L. CLEPHANE, 



Secretary National Republican Association Washington, D. C 



SPEECH OF MR. CRITTENDEX. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill to 
admit Katixat into the Union as a State — 

Mr. CRITTENDEX said : 

I feel how inadoqunte I am, Mr. President, to 
add anything to the various arguments that have 
been employed on thi< fuhjoct during the long dis- 
cussion through which we have passed; and yet I 
should not perform my duty, according to my views, 
if I omitted to e.xpress my sentiments and feelings 
on the subject before the Senate. I do not intend 
to occupy your time with exordiums, sir. The right 
of the people to goveryitheinnelves is the great prin- 
ciple upon tphich our Government and our insti- 
tutions all d'pevd. It seems to me that this great 
principle is involved in the present subject. 

The President of the United States communi- 
cated to us an instrument called the constitution of 
the people of the Territory of Kansas, and he has, 
with unusual earnestness, advised and recommended 
to us to admit Kansas under that constitution, as 
a State into this Union. The question, as it has 
presented itself to my mind, involves an inquiry 
as to the matters of fact bearing upon this instru- 
ment of writing, and whether these authorize us to 
regard this instrument as the constitution of the 
people of Kansa-a. Is it their constitution? Does 
it embody their will ? Does it come here under 
such sanctions that we are obliged to regard it, or 
ought to regard it, as the permanent, fundamental 
law and constitution of this new State? I do not 
think it comes with such a sanction, or ought to be 
regarded as the constitution of the people of Kan- 
sas. Sir, I shall not occupy your time long on this 
point. 

Whatarc the evidences that it is so? It is made 
by a convention, to be sure, called under the au- 
thority of an act of the Legislature of Kansas. It 
is made by delegates regularly elected by this peo- 
ple, and prima facie it would appear that it had 
the sanction of the people of Kansas; but I think 
there are evidences of a higher character to show 
that it is not so, that it is but in appearance a con- 
stitution, and not in reality. 

In the first place, the fact is established beyond 
all controversy that an overwhelming mnjority of 
the people of Kansas are opposed to this instru- 
ment as their constitution. The two higiu-st offi- 
cers of the Federal Government lately there under 
appointment from the President of the United 
States, Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, 
both assure us of that fact upon their personal 
knowledge. That is high evidence to establish the 



fact that it is against the will of an overwhelming 
majority of the people upon whom it is to be im- 
posed as a constitution. 

That constitution in part was submitted to the 
people. . I shall not stop now to inquire how it 
was submitted, whether fairly or not. A part of 
it was submitted, however, and, upon a vote taken 
by the people on the clause thus submitted, it 
received six thousand votes, and a little more. 
These are the s;mctions with which it comes to 
us. To this extent, it would seem to have the 
popular approbation. But, sir, when you come to 
look a litt'e further into the investigations which 
have taken place in that Territory, it appears that 
of those six thousand votes, about three thousand 
were fictitious and fraudulent. That is reported 
to us by the minority reports of our Committee on 
Territories ; that is verified to us by the procla- 
mation issued by the President of the Council and 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 
Territorial Legislature of Kansas. These high offi- 
cials, who were invited by Mr. Calhoun to witness 
the counting of the votes which were returned to 
him, certify from their personal knowledge that 
more than two thousand of the three thousand 
votes which were given at three precincts in the 
counties of Johnson and Leavenworth were ficti- 
tious votes. I only call your attention to this in 
order that it may appear truthfully who it was that 
approved of this constitution. 

That vote was taken on the 21st of December. 
Before that vote was taken, however, a Legisla- 
ture, which was elected in October last, and which 
met on the call of the acting Governor, Mr. Stan- 
ton, in December, passed an act postponing that 
vote from the 2l8t of December to the 4th of Jan- 
uary. On the 4th of January, under the provis- 
ions of that act, a question was taken upon the 
constitution itself broadly. It provided that the 
question should be taken upon the Lecompton 
constitution with slavery, upon the Lecompton 
constitution without slavery, and generally upon 
the constitution itself Upon that occasion, over 
ten thousand voted against the constitution ; and 
the Legislature of the Territory of Kansas have 
passed resolutions unanimously protesting against 
the reception by Congress of this instrument as 
the constitution of the State, declaring that it was 
obtained by fraud, and that it has not the sanction 
or concurrence of any, except a snjall minority of 
the people. Thii is the substance of their reso- 
lutions. 

Now, I aek you, sir, upon this evidence, aa a 



judge, to say whether this is the constitution of 
the people of Kansas or not? whether the evi- 
dence before you is that it is an instrument signi- 
fying their will and declaring that general and per- 
manent law upon which they wish their govern- 
ment to be founded? Unless you shut your eyes 
to the vote taken on the 4lh of January, here is 
a direct popular evidence and protest against the 
constitution ; and, even supposing the whole of 
the six thousand votes which were given for it on 
the 21st of December to be true and real votes, ^ 
fairly expressed, it shows that there were ten thou- 
sand other people in the Territory of Kansas who 
are opposed to this instrument and who have legit- 
imately declaied their opposition. Here is the 
solemn act. of the Legislature of the Territory pro- 
testing against it. These are recorded evidences, as 
much so as the constitution itself is a record, having 
the same legal sanctions and the same legal title to 
our faith and our confidence. How are you, in 
law, to make any difference between these testi- 
monials; to say that you will give effect to one and 
will reject the other; that you will give effect to 
that which testifies /or the minority of the people, 
and will reject that which testifies for tLe majority 
of the people; that you will accept that which was 
first given, and reject the last expressions of the 
popular will ? 

It is these la."t expressions of the poptilar will 
that ought to govern on every principle, just as 
much as that a former law must yield to a subse- 
quent law in any poii>t of conflict between them. 
The last evidence, then, is the vote of the people 
on the 4th of January, of ten thousand against it ; 
and the evidence neaily cotomporaneous with that 
are the resolutions of the Legislature of Kansas, 
protesting and imploring you not to accept this 
instrument, that it is a fraud and an imposition 
upon them. I want to know why it is that this 
evidence is not entitled to our consideration and 
to have effect? The President, it seems to me, 
has given us a most unsatisfactory reason. The 
President says that in recommending the adop- 
tion of this constitution to us, as implied in the 
admission of the State, he has not overlooked the 
vote often thousand against the constitution given 
upon the 4th of January ; he has considered it ; 
but he holds it, and he holds the law of the Territo- 
rial Legislature under which that vote was taken, 
to be nieie nullities. Why ? The law was passed 
by the regularly elected Legislature of the Terri- 
tory providing that a vote should be taken on that 
day ; aiid why not? Is there anything in the or- 
ganic law, is there anything anywhere that forbids 
it? No ; nothing. 

The President had anticipated that the consti- 
tution itself, in whole, and not in part, was to be 
submitted to the people. The Governor had so 
contemplated, and hail so assured and promised 
the people. The President regrets that it was 
only submitted in part, lie regrets that the entire 
constitution was not submitted. Though he ac- 
cepts as an equivalent the partial submission, he 
regrets that it was not submitted as a whole. 

The Territorial Legislature, after this constitu- 
tion was published, innueJiately passed a law to 
have a vote taken upon the entire constitution — 
the very course which the President had preferred, 
and to which Mr. Walker pledged himself. What 



do they do but carry out and act in peifect accord- 
ance with the wishes and opinions of the Presi- 
dent and Governor? And yet the President, who 
was for a general submission, and would have pre- 
ferred it, says the act of the Legislature, in accord- 
ance with his opinion, is a mere nullity. Why? 
Because, he says, by the previous acts ot the peo- 
ple and of the territorial government the Territory 
was so for prepared for admission into the Union 
as a St ite. That is the reason. He gives no ap- 
plication of it, but announces as a reason that it 
was so far prepared because the constitution had 
been made, ready to be offered to Congress, though 
that con-titution had not yet been submitted to 
the people when this law was passed. Tliat was 
her condition ; that was the preparation she had 
made. The only preparation was, that u' der the 
authority of a previois Territorial Legislature, a 
convention had been held, and a constitution made 
and published. 

That was the condition of her preparation; and, 
because of that preparation, the Piesident says 
that the Territorial Legislature had i.o power 
whatever to pass a law to take a popular vote 
upon the adoption of that constitution, to see 
what the people thought of it; to collect the evi- 
dence of ihe public will! What could the Terri- 
torial Legislature do, to satisfy themselves, to 
satisfy the country, to satisfy the just rights of 
the people, but to say a vote shall be taken on the 
4th of January next, in which all the people shall 
declare their assent to, or disapprobation of, this 
constitution as an entire instrument? What is 
there in the preparation above referred to to pre- 
vent it? What lorce had the constitution? 
Gould the constitution, unaccepted by you, un- 
authorized by you, paralyze and annihilate the 
legislative power whit h your act of Congress 
had conferred upon the territorial government? 
Does not that power, and all that power, remain 
as perfect as when you granted it? And cnuld 
the power which your act gave be diminished or 
lessened by any act of mere territorial authority? 
It is palpable that it could not. No matter what; 
act might be done by the people of Kansas, call it 
by what name you please — law of the Territorial 
Legislature, constitution made by the people — no 
matter by what name you call it — the si preinacy 
of the Government of the United l^tates remains 
untouched and unimpaired, and all the power of 
territorial legishttion which it gave may be exer- 
cised by the Legislature. 

Of what avail is this constitution until accepted 
by Congress, and the State admitted upon it? 
Whom does it liind? Is it anything more than a 
proposition by the people of Kansas that "we shall 
be admitted with this instrument, which we offer 
as our constitution?" What more is it? Does it 
bind anybody? Where does it derive its author- 
ity? The organic law authorized no legislation by 
a convention. The convention could exercise no 
legislative power which Congress had given, be- 
cause Congress gave its power to a Territorial 
Legislature, to be elected in a certain manner, and 
to be exercised in a certain manner. The conven- 
tion could exercise no legislative power. It bound 
no one. It did not bind the future State; fur, until 
you accepted it, what prevented the people from 
calling a convention the next day, and altering or 



modifying it according to their own views? I3 
tiiere anything of reason, of argument, or of liiw, 
to support such a proposition sa that the people 
are restriuned fiom making anotljer constitution 
because they have proposed one not yet accepted 
and acted upon by Congress? I think not. 

In my judgment, we have a precedent which 
shows I am right in this view of the subject. The 
ca*:c is this : Wi-consiu, then under a territorial 
government, prosenlid lierself here with a St.ite 
constitution, and asked for admission into the 
Union as a State. Congress admitted her, but on 
the co'idition that her constitution should lie sub- 
mitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the 
Territory — and, if a-sented to by the people, that 
the President should announce that fact by procla- 
mation, and that thereupon, and without any fur- 
ther proceedings on the part of Congress, her ad- 
mission should be complete and absolute. This 
was the case of Wisconsin; this her state 0/ prep- 
aration. What, under these circumstances, did 
the people of Wisconsin do? Did th«.y proceed 
according to this act of Congress, and submit their 
constitution again to the people, as required by 
said act? No, sir; thoy passed that act by, called 
another convention, applied to Congress at a sub- 
sequent session, and were admitted into the Uniou 
as a Stite. 

Was not their state of preparation greater than 
the preparation of the Territory tf Kansas? Here 
Wisconsin was not only in a state of preparation, 
by having made a constitution, but that constitu- 
tion had received the approbation of Congress, 
and she had been conditionally admitted into the 
Union iis a State. Yet she considered that even 
tinder ihtse circumstances, she was at full liberty 
to avail herself, or not to avail herself, of that con- 
ditional admission — and concluliag not to decline 
it, she made another constitution, and was there- 
upon admitted by Congress. 

If they could do that, if, prepared as they were, 
that preparation did not preclude them from making 
another constitution, how is this less state of prep- 
aration, on the part ol Kans;is, to preclude the Ter- 
ritorial 1 egislature, not from performing the high 
act of calling a convention, but simply of taking 
another vole on a constitution which was yet to 
be proposed to Congress? Can any reason be 
shown? No, sir, none. That constitution was, in 
my judgment, inoperative; and of gentlemen who 
think dittereritly I would ask, how long would 
it have operated as binding on the people of Kan- 
sas? Suppose circumstances had occurred which 
had prevented any application to Congress for 
years, how long would this instrument have re- 
tained its vitality and retained its vigor and au- 
thoiity? One year? Two years? Tnree years? 
Four years? How long? Suppose the president, 
Calhoun, had put this mstrument in his pocket 
and kept it there all the days of his life, would 
it all the days of his life have restrained the people 
of Kansiis from taking other steps and calling 
Other conventions, and making other constitutions ? 
If its authority would not have continued a life- 
time, how lotig could it continue ? No man can 
set a limit ; and the conclusion, therefore, is that it 
never had any binding influence — at any rate, 
never such binding influence (and that is all I am 



required t"> show) as to have prevented the peo- 
ple, if they had changed tlieir minds after making 
the first constitution, from calling another con- 
vention, and resorting to all means neccssaiy for 
the establishment of another constitution, and then 
to offer it to you. It is thf irs to offer, and ours 
to dispose of, and they are free up to the last mo- 
ment to make known to Congress what is thi-ir 
will and what is tluir determination in relation to 
the fund imental law of the State which they are 
about to establish. 

Is not this all perf'ctly clear to our reason ? 
Are there any fictions of law; are there any tech- 
nicalities springing out of these instruments, gov- 
erning their foice and effect, to preVL-nl this con- 
clusion ? Is this constitution to be made up into 
a little plea of estoppel against the people? Are 
the little rules which we are to gather from West- 
minister Hall, the little saws in actions at law 
that do well enough to decide little questions of 
tneiim and tuiini among A, B.and C, to be applied 
fts the measure to those great and sovereign prin- 
ciples on which States and peoples rest for their 
rights and their liberties ? No, sir. This is a 
great political question, open, free to be judged of 
according to God's truth and the rights of the 
people unrestrained, unencumbered, tmimpaired 
by any fiction or by any technicality which could 
prevent the lull scope of your justice and your rea- 
son over the whole subject. 

Therefore, sir, this state of preparation of the 
Territory of Kansas for admission into the Union 
has no effect. The argument is not applied ; the 
fact is merely stated that there is a state of prepa- 
ration, and there it would be necessary to stop on 
any doctrine ; for, in my own judgment, no argu- 
ment can be made even of any ordinary plausi- 
bility to show that the state of preparation re- 
strains the people of thuir natural and indefeasible 
right and their legal light a- proclaimed by you, 
to form with perfect freedom thoirown institutions 
bef)re they come into the Union. There is no 
technicality about it. 

Here, it seems to m'', applies that great princi- 
ple to which I adverted at firsf, that Ifie people 
have a right to govirn themselves. I mean, of 
course, in subordination to constitution and law. 
This people had no constitution, could have no 
constitution, while they remaincil in territorial 
dependence; and when the act of the Territorial 
Legislature was passed requiring a vote to be 
taken on this proposed constitution, they had full 
authority to pass that law. Their hands wire not 
bound. Here was a great act about to be done, an 
act to bind the State, to give it a new character, 
to give it new institutions, to ptit upon i' a con- 
stitution — that panoply of the rights of all. This 
was the great act to be done; it is an act which 
none but the people can do through themselves or 
their proper representatives. It is in all cases di- 
rectly or by reference the act of the people. The 
la*s which they establish are not of that transient 
character which can be made to-day ami repealed 
to morrow. They are made for permanency. They 
are the great innnutable and eternal truths and prin- 
ciples on which all government must rest. They 
are expected to l.>e permanent. The people dele- 
gate to others the power of passing temporary and 
repealable laws. They reserve to themselves the 



great riglit of passing those which are permanent 
and can only be repealed by themselves. 

Was it not of consequence, was iinot of import- 
ance to know the will of the people, whether they 
really did approve of this constitution which was 
about to be oflered to Congress — a law which, 
when Congress puts its imprimatur on it by ad- 
mitting the State, is to be permanent ? Would it 
be any harm to take the vote over and over again, 
so long as doubt remains? Congress has the 
power. What objection could there be to it? You 
may say " It is an unnecessary care of the peo- 
ple's rights; you have had their decision once; 
therefore, it is not necessary to have it again ;" 
but out of abundant care, and abundant zeal you 
may choose to take it again and again, and ascer- 
tain whether there may be change or variation in 
the public opinion. Who can say aught against 
it ? Do you oVjject to it because it is taking too 
great care of public liberty, paying too great re- 
spect to popular rights ? Nobody will take that 
ground. 

But it may be said you might delay the appli- 
cation to Congress by these repeated elections. — 
You must avoid that as far as you can. In 
this case it has not delayed it. In this case 
this vote was taken before this constitution came 
before you ; while it yet slumbered in the hands of 
President Calhoun. No objection can be made, 
then, that this was made the cause of, or intended 
merely for the purpose of delay. The result shows 
that it was necessary and proper. The result shows 
that notwithstanding the vote of six thousand, 
in favor of it, there were ten thousand who were 
opposed to it. I say, therefore, this is not the 
coustituiioa of the people of Kansas. It may in a 
certain sense be a constitution offered by the con- 
vention to the people of Elansas ; but which the 
people of Kansas by ten thousand majority have 
rejected, have as lawfully rejected in the last vote, 
as it was lawfully approved by the six thousand first 
voting ill the preceding December, 

I say, then, Mr. President, upon the record evi- 
dence, upon all the evidence, this is not the con- 
stitution of the people of Kansas. It is not the 
constitution under which they desire that you 
shall admit them into the Union. Now, will you, 
against their will, force them into the Union under 
a constitution which they disapprove? That is 
the question. You know the fact that ten thou- 
sand agaii!st six thousand are opposed to the con- 
stitution. You know that by the act of their Ter- 
ritorial Legislature they entreat you not to admit 
them with this constitutioi:. They tell you, more- 
over, as one of their reasons, not only that they 
disapprove of the whole constitution, but that it is 
particularly hateful to them because the votes given 
for it, or apparently given for it, were, to a great 
extent, fraudulent and fictitious. The Legislature 
tells you that nuie-tenths of the people there are 
opposed to it. 

Now, would it not be strange, that under these 
circumstances, we should, without any motive for 
it that I know of, as the common arbiters of all 
Territories and States to the extent of our const!-, 
tutional power, force her into the Union? What 
motive can we have, what right motive, with the 
knowledge of these facts, to force her into the 
Union, and to enforce upon her this constitution ? 



I cannot feel myself authorized to do such a thing. 
Of course I do not impugn the motives and the 
views of others, who, taking a different view, act 
from impressions different from mine. They act 
upon one view, and I upon another ; but, viewing 
the subject as I do, it seems to me that to do thia 
is a plain, unmistakable violation of the right of the 
people to govern themselves. 

I have endeavored to show you, sir, that this 
is not the constitution of the people of Kansas, 
according to the recorded evidence of their will. 
It seems to me, furthermore, that this constitution 
is a fraud. It is not only not their constitution, 
according to their will, but it is got up and made 
in fraud, to deprive them of their lights. I believe 
that, and I think it can be shown. 

The President of the United States has furnished 
us an argument on this subject, and it has been 
oftentimes repeated heie in the debate — of course 
a plausible and ingenious argument, as all must 
admit, even those who deny the solidity of the 
reasoning. What is the argument? The Presi- 
dent says that the sense of the people was taken, 
and proved to be in favor of calling a convention. 
The convention was called; delegates were elected; 
those delegates made a constitution ; that consti- 
tution was submitted to the people in part, and 
approved by a vote of six thousand, taken accord- 
ing to law. Well, all these, you will observe, con- 
stitute a tissue, a long series of little legalities, reg- 
ularities, and technicalities ; and the reasoning of 
the President is founded on technical points on 
each of these ficts. You must admit all the facts. 
Yes, sir, the fiicts are all true; and if they alone 
constituted the case, the conclusion would be fair 
and right that this constitution has been regularly 
made; that this constitution has been sanctioned 
by the people as well as by the convention. But 
is there no more in the case than this ? There is 
a great deal more in the case than this. 

When frauds have been alleged and charged 
against this government of Kansas, gentlemen say, 
"Ah, but these frauds w^re in other elections; 
these frauds do not particularly and specifically 
touch this constitution, or the proceedings which 
led to this constitution." But suppose theie were 
frauds in relation to it : is it not something if I show 
you that, in regard to that part of the constitution 
which was submitted to the people to be ratified 
by them, and which was nothing until the people 
had ratified it even accoidi-ng to the constitution 
itself, there was fraud in that election, and abun- 
dance of fraud ? So glaring, go impudent, and so 
fearless had frauds in elections become there, that 
upon that very poll list, in one of the precincts, (I 
forget whether it was in Oxford, or Shawnee, or 
that other precinct that emulates these in its char- 
acter for fraud, Kickapoo.) you find that the Pres- 
ident of the Ignited States, Colonel Benton, and 
the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Seward,] 
were there, it seems, or fictitious votes were put 
in for them by somebody, and a long list of persons 
of that sort of figure on the poll-book at these mis- 
erable precincts as actual voters. That was the 
vote on the constitution on December 21; that 
was on the part submitted to the people. They 
were the constitution making power there, and 
there I show you the fraud. 

What further frauds there were I know not; 



but this much is apparent — and later develop- 
ments show greater frauds still — that in one single 
precinct, where there were only thirty or forty 
votes to be tulsen legitimately, there were over 
twelve hundred; and under the investigation lately 
made by conimissioners in Kansas, tha*, upon 
sworn testimony is stated to be the fact. In one 
precinct there were twelve hundred fraudulent a'ld 
fictitious votes cut of twelve hundred and >ixty ; 
seven hundred in anotlier, and over six hundred 
in anothei' ; making in the aggregate twenty-six 
hundred votes in three precincts, entirely fraud- 
ulent and fictitious, written out by hundreds vn 
the poll-book after the election was over, put on 
without scruple upon the poll-book, upon the 
election return, put down without scruple during 
the election, of those who weie quiiifieiJ, and 
those who were not qualified ; and that is the way 
this coustintion in pait has received its sanction. 

But, sir, I think that we should take a very 
partial view of this subject, one very unsatisfac- 
tory to our judgment, if we were to isolate these 
facts which have direct relation only to the form- 
ation of tliis constitution, and leave out all the 
surrounding circnmstanccs. It seems to me that 
the proper and the just mode of regarding this 
constitution is to consider it as one of a series of 
acts, and see if we can find that tlie whole action 
and operation of all those acts were to lead to one 
general purpose — that of maintaining by fraud 
and by falsehood the power and the government 
of the minority, and their offices to them against 
the will of the great majority of the voters. I say 
it is an act connected witli all the other acts. The 
whole case is to be taken, and every part of it 
judged of in this connection. 

Now, what was the first act? That is histor- 
ical. We may all speak of it now, though we 
disputed it at the time. The first Legislature that 
was elected in Kansas under the organic act, was 
not elected by the people of Kansas. It was elect- 
ed by persons who were intruders from abroad — 
who intrud'-d themselves with arms in their 
hands, seiz".d upon the ballot-boxes, put in their 
own b;ill(»ts, driving away the legitimate voters, 
and elected the members to tho TiPgislature. That 
is the way the government of Kansas was inau- 
gurated. Those who had been driven from the polls, 
those who were opposed to the party tiiat was 
installed in power by these ni' ans, conceived 
such indignation and such disgust that they pro- 
claimed aloud, whether wisely or unwisely, that they 
renounced all obedience to this spurious govern- 
ment, as they called it. It is not mateiial to me 
whether their complaints are well f ninded and 
true, or not. I am endeivoiing to depict the 
course of things, to show their motives and tlic 
mntives of the persona who were thus installed 
into the territorial government. They came to 
their power by violence; they came to their power 
by fraud. That was the complaint of the oppos- 
ing party in Kansas. They renounced their rule, 
they renounced their laws, refused to commit 
themselves in any way to their support, refused 
to go to any election afterwards. They said, 
"Wliat \s the use? This corrupt minority who 
have got into power, who have in their hands the 
means of controlling the election, who arc not too 
good to do it, and who will do it, who have done 



it, will practice the same mrans; we shall be agaia 
driven from the polls, or, if not, they, having the 
control of the elections, and of all the officers who 
conduct and manage them, will liave what returns 
made they please. We will suliject ourselves no 
more to the humiliation of attemtiiing to execute 
a right which we know wilj be fi nitrated and 
defeated by fraud, or by force." Under these im- 
pressions, and with these feelings, which it is not 
my part heie either to JMsily or rebuke, but 
simply to state the fict, th<.-y withdrew from the 
elections lest, by voting according to the laws 
pHSSed by this coiinpt Legislature, as they con- 
sidered it, they should seem to acknowledge its 
authority and theii' alUgi mce to it. 

Now, what would be the condition of the men 
who had been installed into power in this way? 
They would be pleased that llieir opponents had 
thus withdrawn themselves from th,- polls. In all 
the electious to be held afterwards, this power of 
the miuority, however small, would be continued ; 
as their emonies would not come up to vole, they 
would be re-elected and would retain and perpetu- 
ate their power. So they went on — the field aban- 
doned by the majority — and the minority ruling 
everything in this way. Look at the evidences that 
are before you from those higli officers lately return- 
ed from Kansas — Stanton and Walker. They tell 
you of frauds regularly perpetrated there ; and, 
although they had thought before that the people 
were acting fictiously, that they were acting sedi- 
tiously, that they wert> acting rebelliously in at- 
tempting to withdraw themselves fioin tliis gov- 
ernment altogether and to act for themselves, and 
that their complaints of fraud and imposition upon 
them in elections were rather all'ected f>r thj pur- 
pose of giving color to their conduct than other- 
wise, yet when they went among the people and 
heard them, and learned all about the dealings that 
had been practiced, they could not doubt their 
truth and their sincerity in the resentment which 
they felt and in the conduct which they pursued. 
However unwise, it was sincere on their part. — 
They had been defrauded ; thi<y had wrongs enough 
to tting and humiliate them. This- is what these 
officers say. I know nothing about it ; we know 
nothing about it, except on the teft'mony. That the 
ruling nunority party were capable of committing 
fraud, we know, fhey began in fraud. Ilas any gen- 
tleman here denied, is there any gentkinan who 
discredits the history which we all have of the 
frauds practiced in the first election that was held 
in Kansas? However «e might doubt this, how- 
ever we might have disagreed, however we might 
have believed or disbelieved heretofore, ha\e not 
every mist and doubt been cleared away from 
around this fact, and is there one here now to say 
that the right of election was not trodden down 
in the first election for a Territorial Legislature in 
Kan.-as, and tliat a minoiity govetnment was not 
elected ? That they have continued that govern- 
ment by fraud since, is shown at every step of 
th(;ir progress. 

It was in the midst of this self suspension of tbe 
right of suflfrage on the part of their opponents, 
that they called the convention by which this con- 
stitution was made. Look at the constitution it- 
self. Ou its own fiice, does it not contain the am- 
plest preparation for fraud, visible 'and apparent? 



Look at the internal evidence marked on its face. 
They pass by all the sworn officials of the territo- 
rial government who had before conducted elec- 
tions — they authorized, by the schedule to the 
constitution, President Calhoun to take this whole 
matter into his hands, to appoint the officers to 
conduct theelectiorfs, giving him control over that 
official body, and the appointment of them all; 
and the returns were not to be made to any per- 
manent officer of the government, not to the Gov- 
ernor, but to this same Mr. Calhoun. He was to 
appoint the officers to conduct the election, receive 
the returns, count the ballots, and declare the re- 
sult. Well, Mr. Calhoun has performed all this 
business ! 

Another thing: every human being, in respect 
to that part of the constitution which was sub- 
mitted to the people, before he could vote for or 
against it, was required to swear tliat he would 
support that constit\ition when it was adopted. In 
that constitution, those who framed it well knew 
were provisions intolerable to all the free-State 
men in the Territory, and they would not swear to 
support it. They so believed and hoped and ex- 
pected. This was under the show of a fair elec- 
tion. Not only have they secured all the advant- 
ages resulting from the appointment of the officers 
to conduct it, but, to leave their consciences more 
easy, these officers were not even sworn. There 
was no provision for that. But every man voting 
for the constitution, or that pait of it submitted to 
him to vote upon, was required to be sworn be- 
forehand that he would support that constitution. 
This, it was supposed, if nothing else, would keep 
off the free-State men. 

It is said, in this testimony, that Governor "Walker, 
from the time he went there, had been diligently 
persuading all the people of the Territory to throw 
aside this inaction of theiis, come into the elec- 
tions, and participate in the Government. For 
this, Mr. Stinton says. Governor Walker became 
the object of utter hostility to Mr. Calho\!u's party. 
They did not want conciliation. They demanded, 
as the same witness says, repression. They wanted 
penaltv, not persuasion. They did not know what 
the result of this persuasion might be in the elec- 
tions afterwards to take place on the constitution. 
It was necessary, therefore, to mike provision 
against the possible effect of these persuasions 
and arguments of Governor Walker ; it was, there- 
fore, necessary to put in, though nobody opposed 
them, six thousand votes for the constitution, they 
believing t'lat that was a majority of the greatest 
number of votes ever given on any occasion in 
the Territory, and so it is stated here. They just 
went beyond the l-ine; and for fear of rendering it 
more monstrous, and the fraud more vi-iible, thi'y 
went just so far as the necessity demanded the 
fraud. They did not choose to use it superfluously. 
They rather husbanded it, to be used as the occa- 
sion might require, and no more than was requi: e i. 
I cannot shut my eyes to this fact. These prepa- 
rations, then, in the schedule of the constitution, 
were made in anticipation of the vague dangers 
that were apprehended. It was greatly important 
to carry through this constitution, greatly import- 
ant to preserve their authority under the consti- 
tution. There were two Senators of the United 
States to be elected. All the officers of the State 



government were to be constituted. These were 
to be the reward of those who had labored. 

These seem to me to be preparations made for 
fraud; and when I come to compare them with 
the action which took place afterwards, the design 
and the act, the puipose and fulfillment of it, make 
the proof perfect. The means of doing it, the 
means of facilitating it, are given in the constitu- 
tion. The actual perpetration of it afterwards at 
the polls is seen. It is seen in the election upon 
the constitution. It is seen in the election of the 
4th of January, for officers under the new consti- 
tution. There is where these fiauds, lately devel- 
oped, were practised to such an enormous extent. 
There is where these little precincts distinguished 
themselves. 

Another fact may be noticed, that this conven- 
tion to make a constitution were to meet, by law, 
in September, and go to their work. They met 
then. Did they go to work ? No. Why did 
they not ? There was an election of the Territo- 
rial Legislature to take pla^e in the October fol- 
lowing. They wanted to know the result of that 
election ; to know how tt;e land lay ; whether all 
was safe or not; whether any point was necessary 
to be guarded in the constitution ; whether there 
were any unexpected majorities rising up ; whether 
there were any obstructions in the way of ordi- 
nary fiauds. They wanted to see what was the 
character of the new Legislature, that they might 
meet the emergency and meet the exigency with 
any constitutional provision that might be neces- 
sary to perpetuate their power. They therefore 
adjourned to a day after the election. The Le- 
gislature was elected ; and that Legislature turned 
out, notwithstanding all tlie frauds that were 
practiced, to be against them. What then? The 
Legislature being against them, now what is the pro- 
vision they made in the constitution ? The officers 
of election, and other officers of the Government, 
were, many of them, appointed by the Territorial 
Legisliituie. They thought, "Now, here has come 
in, in October, a Legislature opposed to us. What 
so likely but that they who liave complnined of 
frauds from Government officials, wilhiow change 
the officers and change the mode of election V" 
What then? They declare in the schedule that 
all who ai'e in office now, shall hold their offices ; 
that all the laws in existence now, shall continue 
in existence until repeialed by a Legislature which 
shall meet under the State organization under the 
constitution. That silences completely the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature, and paralyzes its power. That 
was a security against them, and left the conven- 
tion and its party to take the chances at the 
future election to be held, by their officials, ou 
the 4th day of January last, as provided by them, 
and then they were to make another final death- 
stiuggle for supremacy ; and then, indeed, they did. 
I have seen the report of the commissioners lately 
appointed by the Territorial Legislature of Kan- 
sas to investigate the frauds. There this Gov- 
ernmeni party did make eftbrts more than worthy 
of all thiir former practices in fraud, in order to 
secure the Legislature, which, under the constitu- 
tion, would make Senators of the United States. 
It was here that Oxford, that Shawnee, that Kick- 
apoo, distinguished themselves in the multiplicity 
of votes, feigned and fraudulent. 



Whon you see such things a3 these iu tlie con- 
stitution, when you see euch things as these 
all around the con>titution, when you see the sume 
men who made tho constitution rulers in the lutid 
during the whole time, do you not see that the 
frauds have been everywhere, that the imposition 
upon the people has been i very where ? And how 
can you exempt horn the contagion (if there was 
nothing more than this geuenil a.-'soeialion from 
which to infer it) this constitution and those who 
made it? Judging from the positive internal evi- 
dence that exists in it, and the ficts that surround 
it, I cannot. I believe that to impose it upon them, 
violates the right of the people to govern them- 
selves. I believe this constitution is the work ot 
fraud — fraud upon the rights of the people. 

I do not undertake to defend the free-soilers for 
their conduct. It is nof my part nor my province. 
I should agree, perhaps, with the Prt sident, that 
much of their conduct has been of a disreputable, 
disorderly, and seditious character. It may be 
that it deserves the epithet of " rebellion," which 
the President applies to it. I have nothing to do 
with that. 1 am not their advocate. I have dis- 
approved of their conduct in many instances. There* 
were many bad meu among them, as 1 believe, but 
for them the law assigns its proper punishment. 
The majority of the people liave their political 
rights, that remain, notwithstanding their legal 
ottenses. It is in that point of view, it is in their 
political character as the people of a Territory, 
that we are now to regard them. Whether they 
be more or less guilty on one side or the other, is 
not the question. I (ear that neither party could 
take the chair of impartiality and justice, and be 
shameless enough to attempt to administer re- 
buke to the othtr. 

One great oVijection to their admission at all, is 
that they have not shown, by their conduct on any 
side, that they are altogether tit for association 
with the States of this Union. A little more ap- 
prenticeship, a little more practice of honest and 
fair dealing, a little more spirit of submission and 
subordination to liw and authority, would be 
well learned by thom, and (it and qualify them 
much better for citizens of the United States. 
That is my opinion. I have, however, spoken of 
their political rights as men, and it is not for me to 
sit in judgment to condenm and deprive them of 
the right of suffrage on one side or the other, be- 
cause of (rands committed by one, or violence 
practiced by another. This is a political question. 
It is said, however, that the series of legalities 
and technicalities, to which I have alluded, of a 
regular election, of a regular convention, of a sub- 
mission to the people, and of votes of the people 
upon all these questions, have been regular ; and 
■what then? It is further said, on the other 
side, that all the people had a right to vote 
and those who did not vote forfeited their right to 
complain ; and we are not to in((uire whether there 
were any people who did not vote, or whether 
those who did vote voted fairly, and were entitled 
to vote or not. It is sai 1 we are precluded by the 
forms in which tMs tranaction is enveloped; tiiat 
the foimal election, the fomal certificate of elec- 
tion, the form:d constitution certified — these form- 
"I'ties are enough for us, and that we arc not per- 
mitted to look further ; that v, e ought not to look 



further. Sir, I do not think so. "We a^e applied 
to now to admit a new State into the Union. The 
instrum >nt which she presents as her constitution 
is .opposed by the people from the same Territory. 
They say, " this is not our constitution; it is 
against our will ; it is not only agiinst our will, 
but it has been imposed upon us by devices and 
fraud. It is void for fraud. If it is not void for 
fraud, for that is rather a legal than a political 
term, we present these frauds and this opposition 
as a reason why you should not admit our Ter- 
ritory into the Union under this constitution." 

That is the state of the question before you. 
The complainants admit all the regularities just as 
the President states them. Perhaps they admit 
the effect thescf forms would ordinarily have, but 
they urge other facts in opposition to the apparent 
evidence of the constitution itself, as I have be- 
fore adverted to. A miijority of the people have 
protested against it. Tlie present Legislature, by 
its inquiries, have developed the vast frauds which 
weie practiced in connection with, and in rela- 
tion to, this constitution. They say, "do not ac- 
cept it ; do not admit us under it ; send it ba ck ; 
let it be submitted to a fair vote of the people." 
Sir, upon such a complaint as this, aie we not 
bound, in justice to tliat peoph', to examine the 
whole case? Can any Senator turn aw^y and 
refuse to look at the testimony that is offered ? 
Can he be justified in so doing by naked legal pre- 
sumptions against positive truth? 

Do not suppose that I would discard all formali- 
ties, or the fair presumptions resulting from tliem. 
In many cases, and to many of the transaciious 
of society, especially to your courts of justice, 
they are necessary, and they subserve the pur- 
poses of justice. They were not made to sacri- 
fice justice, but to uphold it and maintain it 
aud protect it as an armor. That is the proper 
business of forms — not to crush d^own justice, 
but to piomote it. We are not now sitting here 
governed by any technicalities. This is a grand 
national political tiibunal, to judge according to 
our sense of policy and our sense of justice. That 
is our high province — not to be controlled by pre- 
feumptions of law when we can have the naked 
truth. It, is the truth that ought to guide; and 
for that we ought to look wherever we can find it ; 
and where you find the truth on one side, and the 
fiction on the other, which is to be followed, the 
truth or the fiction? I take the fact; I take the 
truth ; let the fiction return to those tribunals 
which are by law made subject to it. This is a 
question above that sort of argument. It is in- 
quirable into. Else how can we judge that it is 
their constitution? It is the fiist time, I believe, 
that such a question has ever come up in the Sen- 
ate of the United States. In all former applica- 
tions for admission, there has been oiu' thing about 
which there has been no question ; and that was, 
the willingness to be admitted, and the constitu- 
tion under which they desired to be admitted. 
There has been no question about the authenticity 
of a constitution, or about its expressing the true 
will of the people heretofore, that I know of. I am 
satisfied there has been none ; but now that there 
is, we must inquire into the authenticity of the 
nstruinent offered to us; we must inipare whether 
it is better, on full consideration, to admit this 



10 



instrument and the State with it or not; and, in 
the exercise of that judgment, we are bound to 
looli abroad for the truth wherever we can find it. 
I think, therefore, these matters are all fairly sub- 
ject to our consideration. 

Mr. President, convinced as I am from these 
imhprfect views of the evidence in the case, that 
this instrument is not really the constitution of the 
people of Kansas, or desired by them to be accepted 
by you in their admission into the Union ; believ- 
ing that it is not their constitution ; and believing 
moreover, as I verily do, that it is made in fraud 
and for a fiaud; believing that these matters are 
inquirable into by us, and that the inquiry has led 
us to abundant light on this subject, I cannot, I 
will not vote for it. Viewing it (is I do, with the 
opinions I entertain, I could not consent to her ad- 
mission without violating my sense of right and jus- 
tice; and I would submit to any consequence before 
I would do that. 

Now, sir, what considerations are there, apart 
from- these which I have stated, which could lead 
me to give, or could compensate me for giving, a 
vote against my sense of what was right and just? 
What advantage to our whole country, or to any 
portion of it, is to result from taking Kansas into 
the Union now with this constitution? Is anything 
to be gained? Is the South or the North to gain 
anything by it? I see nothing to be gained by it. 
I think there is not a gentleman here who believes 
that Kansas will be a slave State. Before this ter- 
ritorial government was made, many of the leading 
men of the South here argued that Kansas and 
Nebraska never could be slave States. By the law 
of climate and geography, it was said, they could 
not. So said my friend from Georgia, [ Mr. Toombs,] 
and so said Mr. Stephens. 

Mr. TOOMBS. Never. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. Badger said so. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Mr. Keitt and Mr. 
Brooks, of South Carolina, said so. The opinion 
was expressed by numerous southern gentlemen 
that Kansas could never be a slave State. It was 
for the principle that they contended; and the priu - 
ciple, the abstract principle, was a just one; 
namely, the right of the people of the Territories) 
when forming a State government, for admission 
into the Union, to frame for themselves such a le- 
publican constitution as they pleased, either ex- 
cluding or admitting slavery. 

Mr. HAMMOND. With the permission of the 
Senator, I will ask him, "Did I understand him to 
say that Mr. Keitt had declared Kansas never 
would be a slave State ?" 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yea, sir; so it is report- 
ed. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said : 

" Does any man believe that you will have a slave- 
holding State in Kansas or Nebraska ?" 

Governor Bkown, of Mississippi, said: 

" That slavery would never find a resting place in 
those Territories." 

Mr. Douglas said: 

" I do not believe there is a man in Congress who 
thinks it could be permanently a slaveholaiug coun- 
try." 

Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said : 

" I have no more idea of seeing a slave population 
in either of them, than I have of seeing it in Massa- 
chusetts." 



Mr. MiLLSON, of Virginia, said : 

" No one expects it. No one dreams that slavery 
will be established there." 

Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, said: 

" The fears of northern gentlemen are wholly un- 
founded. Slavery will not be established in Kansas 
and JSebraska." 

The late Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina said, in 
his speech of the 15th of March, 1854: 

" If the natural laws of climate and of soil exclude 
us from a territorj' of which we are the joint owners, 
we shall not and we will not complain. 

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina said, on the 2d of 
March, 1854: 

" If two States should ever come into the Union 
from them, [the Territories,] it is very certain that 
not more than one of them could, in any possible 
event, be a slave-holding State ; and I have not the 
least idea that even one would be." 

Mr. Keitt, of South Carolina, in his speech of 
the 30th March, 1854, quoted Mr. Pinckney, of his 
own State, that — 

" Practically, he thpught slavery would not go 
I above the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes 
by the laws of phj'sical geography, and "therefore, 
that the South lost no territory tit for slavery." 

This is all the authority I have. 

Mr. GREEX. I wish to inquire what book the 
Senator reads from. What is the title of it ? 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. It seems to be a book 
written with the most downright Democratic pro- 
pensities and purposes. [Laughter.] It is " Aa 
Appeal to 'the Democracy of the South, by a south- 
ern State-Rights Democrat." [Laughter.] 

Mr. MASON. I suppose the pamphlet is anony- 
mous. No name is given. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MASON. The name of the writer of the 
pamphlet is not given. 

VI r. CRITTENDEN. Will the gentleman take 
it? It contains a great deal of good Democratic 
reading. [Laughter.] The writer of it thought 
he was doing great service to the Democratic 
party. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I wish to say that Mr. Keitt 
quoted that passage from Mr. Pinokney's speech 
on the Missouri question, which had been quoted 
on the opposite side of the case previously. His 
object in quoting it was to show that Mr. Pinckney 
did not support the Missouri compromise upon 
principle, but he did not indorse the sentiments 
expressed by Mr. Pickney in that extract. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. I accept the explanation. 
Certainly I had no intention to misrepresent any 
gentleman by reading the statements expressed in 
this pamphlet. I say it was not anticipated from the 
first that Kansas would be a slave-holding State. 
What is the South to gain now by having it admit- 
ted? It may gain a triumph in the admission of this 
constitution — admitted against the will of the majo- 
rity of the people. It is a triumph, but is it not a 
baren one? Is it a triumph worthy of the South? 
It will produce nothing but increased bitterness 
and exasperation, perhaps, on the part of those 
against whose will it is forced, not only in the 
Territory, but elsewhere. It may give new exasper- 
ation to the slavery question ; new agitation, which 
God forbid. It would be a victory without results, 



11 



without profit, barren, sterile: — as to all the ordi- 
nary and beneficial fruits, there is none. I do not 
know how anything is to be gained to the South, 
supposing, lis I verily believe, and as every gen- 
tleman here believes, that it cannot be a slave 
State; tl at there is a majority there oppo^^ed 
to it, and who will put it down. Pass this, 
and we may have a lew years longer of exasperated 
struggle and exasperated agitation in the country. 
Tliat is all the consequence of the barren victory 
which would be obtained by admitting Kansas with 
this constitution. That is not a fruit, I think, wiiich 
any one would wish to gather. Now, if youattenipt 
Joinforce it, we are told by Mr. Walker — 1 know 
nothing about it, but from all that he and Mr. 
Stanton tell us, and they are Democratic witnesses 
— there is danger of resistance and danger of rebel- 
lion. 

Where is the necessity, then, for our doing it 
now ? Can we not resort to some other me.ms by 
which we may avoid all these consequences of 
exasperation, of danger, of resistance, of tumult, 
or of agitation, upon this subject ; and end this 
contest in a short time by authorizing the people 
of Kansas, under the high mandate of this (tov- 
ernment, to form for themselves a constitution, 
if ttiey want to come into thi.s Union — a constitu- 
tion fairly to be made, and fairly to express the 
will of the people It defers the subject but a 
little while. Is it not better to do that; is it not 
better to suffer the evils we have, than to fly to 
others we know not of? I think every prudential 
consideration is in favor of our forbearing to en- 
force this constitution on the people of Kansas, 
and of our affording them an oppoitunity of making 
their views fully and perfectly understood. This 
will be in accordance with the generous principles 
and policy that the South has pursued heretofore. 

The Kansas-Nebraska bill was recommended 
to the South, chiefly, by the repeal of the Mis- 
souri compromise, and the recognition of the 
right of the people of a Territory, when framing 
a constitution of State government for them- 
selves, to be " perfectly free" to frame it as they 
pleased — admitting or excluding slavery, and reg- 
ulating their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the constitution of the United 
States. 

Every citizen has an equal interest and right in 
Territories belonging to the people of the United 
States; and the result of this equal right sec ns to 
me, to be, that, where there is no positive law to 
the contrary, any citizen ii ay lawfully carry his 
slaves into those Territories, and may lawfully hold 
them. They were his slaves in the State from 
which he emigrated, and must remain his, till di- 
Testcd of his right, by law — ^just as an apprentice, 
under the same circumstances, remains bound to 
his master. 

My opinion is, that the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise was u blunder; but I concur in (he 
principle that the people of our Territories, wh( n 
they come to form a constitution for themselves, 
have a right to form it as they please. I am now 
acting upon that great principle of jjopular rights. 
I feel myself bound to give tlie benefit of it to the 
people of Kansas. Let the majority make such a 
constitution as they please. That is the great Ame- 
rican principle, that rises above all others. Let 



them govern themselvef", and as the majority de- 
cide, so let the constitution and so let the laws be. I 
think we are infracting that great priiu-iple — the 
principle of the South itself, on this very identical 
subject, by forcing this constitution, at least of 
doubtful authenticity, upon the people. If there is 
a majority in favor of it, it is not much trouble for 
them to ratify it. If there is a majority opposed 
to it, they are entitled to have their will and their 
wav. They are entitled to that upon principle; 
thJy are entitled to it by the express pledges of 
the Kansas-Nebraska law. 

Sir, I feel that I have already occupied a great 
deal of your time — more than I was entitled or 
expected to do; and yet there are some general 
topics upon which I wish to say something, though 
not so immediately connected with the direct 
question before us. 

Mr. President, I am, according to the denomi- 
nations now usually employed Vjy parties in this 
countrv, a southern man. I have lived all my life 
in a southern State. I have been accustomed from 
my childhood to that frame of society of which 
slaverv forms a part. I am, so far as regards the 
necessary defense of the rights of the South, as 
prompt and as ready to defend them as any man 
the wide South contains; but in the same resolute 
and determined spirit in which I would defend 
any invasion of its rights, and for which I would 
put my foot as far as he who went furthest, I will 
concede to others their rights, and I will maintain 
and assert them. He who know.s how to value 
his own rights will respect the rights of others. 

When the Missouri compromise was abolished, 
great fears were excited in the North, and some 
vague hopes entertained in the South, that slavery 
might be established in Kansas, and extended in 
that direction. I did not believe it. I beHeved that 
the Missouri compromise line fixed in 18'20, was 
about that territorial line, north of which slavery, 
if it could exist, would not be profitably employed ; 
and our experience since has shown that the wise 
men who made that compromise judged rightly. 
I believed that the idea of making Kansas a sLave 
State was a delusion to the South ; that her hopes 
would never be realized, if she entertained such a 
hope as that. I thought, therefore, it would have 
been better, without examining scrupulously into 
its constitutionality, to let the Missouri compro- 
mise stand. I regretted its repeal. I did not be- 
lieve the South would gain anything by it, or that 
the North would gain by it. 

That compromise was a bond and assurance of 
peace. I would not have disturbed it. It was 
hallowed in my estimition by the memory of 
the men who had made it. It was hallowed by 
the beneficial consequences that resulted from it. 
It was hailed, at the time it was made, by the 
South. It produced good, and nothing but good, 
from that time. Often have you, sir, [addressing 
Mr. TooMHS,] and I, and all of the old Whig par- 
ty, triumphed in that act as one of the great 
achievements of our leader, Henry Clay. It was 
from that, among other things, that he derived the 
proudest of all his titles — that of the pacificator 
and peacemaker of his coui-try. We ascribed to 
him a great instrumentality in the passage of that 
law, and over and over again have I claimed credit 
and honor for him for this act. This, for thirty 



12 



years, had been my steadfast opinion. I have 
been growing, perhaps, during that time, a little 
older, and am a little less susceptible of new im- 
pressions and novel opi.iions. I cannot lay aside 
the idea that the law which made that line of di- 
vision was a constitutional one. I believed so 
then. The people since have generally believed 
it. I must be permitted to retain that opinion 
still; to go on, at any rate, to my end with the 
hope that I have not been praising, and have not 
been claiming credit for others lor violating the 
Constitution of their country. 

Sir, the men who passed that measure were 
great men; they were far-seeing men. Without 
argument now, I am content to rest my faiUi upon 
the authority of those great men — Clay, Pinckney, 
Lowndes, President Monroe, 'he last of the patri- 
archs of the Revolution, with his learned and 
able Cabinet — and then, what is more than all, 
thirty-five years of acquiescence in it, and peace 
under it, in these States. Whatever quarrels you 
may have had about it in Congress, there was al- 
ways enough to uphold and sustain that law ; and 
never, until 1854, was it repealed, or its constitu- 
tionahty questioned, that I know of. I regretted 
its repeal, because I feared that it would lead to 
new agitations and new dangers. Has it not? 
What has been our experience? 

The authors of the measure which repealed that 
compromise — lionorable and patriotic I know them 
to be, many of them my personal friends — prom- 
ised themselves from it greater peace and greater 
repose by localizing the slavery question, as it was 
eaid. This act was to localize the question of 
slavery, and all agitation was to be at an end. 
It was to give peace to the country. The Presi- 
dent in his message at the coniinencement of 
this session, or in his special message — I do not 
know which — imagines the country to have been 
in great agitation on the subject of slavery, when 
the Kansas-Nebraska act came and put a stop to 
it until, some time afterwards, it was revived. 
Why, sir, exactly the contrary seems to me to 
be the true history of the transaction. We were 
becoming tranquilized under the compromises of 
1850 in addition to the Missouri compromise; 
all was subsiding into submission and acqui- 
escence, when, to obtain a greater degree of 
peace and secure us for the future against all 
agitation, this bill of 1854 repealing the Missouri 
compromise was passed. What has it produced ? 
Has it localized the question of slavery ? Has it 
given us peace ? All can answer that question. 
It has given us rnything but a cessation of agita- 
tion. It has given us trouble, nothing but trouble. 
That has been the consequence of it so far. 

I am as anxious now us any man here to close 
up this scene. I would vote for the admission of 
Kansas upon almost any terms that would give 
peace and (luiet. If I thought this bill would do 
60, 1 should vote for it. I would suppress all scru- 
ples for the sake of that peace. If I was sure 
such would be its result, I would vote for it, tiiink- 
ing myself justified by the price that was to be 
paid — the peace of my country and the restora- 
tion of good will among my fellow-citizens. I 
do not hope for it. I fear further trouble. We 
are again told that this will have the effect of 
localizing the question of slavery, and that we 



shall be uo more tmnbled with it; that the mis- 
chief and clamor, and agitation will all be confined 
to the limits of Kansas. This is the same hope 
that was disappointed when the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill was passed. The same hope was indulged ia 
then, and since then there has been nothing here 
but agitation on the subject increasing with every 
day. 

Again, we have the idea of localizing it pre- 
sented. Now, sir, if it is to be debated anywhere, 
it will be debated here ; and, perhaps, if it is to 
be debated anywhere, it is best that it should be 
debated here; because we might hope, Mr. Presi^ 
dent, that in this body it would be debated with i 
spirit of moderation and conciliation that would 
deprive it of many mischievous consequences if it 
were agitated and debated among men without our 
years, without our responsibilities, and without 
the restraints which our condition and our know- 
ledge impose upon us. Even here we do not de- 
bate it in the right way. We allow ourselves to 
become too much excited about it. To this great 
country, what is Kansas and this Kansas question, 
and the two or three hundred slaves who are there, 
that you and I and all the American Senate should 
be here day and night, and using such language of 
vituperation and invective on this subject as we 
often do ? Look at our great country, and the 
great subjects which claim our attention as her 
legislators ; look at them all in their majesty and 
their magnitude, and then say, how little, pitiful, in 
comparison, is the question about which we are 
making so much strife and contention. 

On this subject, and on many others, it seems to 
me that it becomes us, of all the citizens of this 
great Republic, to set to our fellow-citizens ex- 
amples of moderation and conciliation. What 
good does the mutual charge of aggression, often 
fiercely repeated? What good do these invec- 
tives? Especially let me say to my friends of 
the North, why indulge in invectives of the most 
reproachful character, upon those who, in four- 
teen or fifteen States of tiiis great country, are 
slaveholders? Does that give you any cause to 
traduce them? Can you not live content with 
the institutions which please you better, and leave 
these fellow-citizens, who have just the same right 
to adopt slavery that you have your institutions, 
to enjoy their liberty in peace also? Is there any- 
thinsr in the difference of our institutions which 
ought to make us inimical to one another? How 
was it with our fathers ? Did not they live to- 
gether in peace and harmony? Did not they fight 
together? Did not they legislate together? Did 
they ever abuse and reproach each other about the 
question of slavery? Never, that I have read of. 
Why is it that we wannot do as they did? Havi 
we degenerated from those fathers, or have we 
grown so much Detter and purer than they were? 
I doubt whether we are any better; and I do no! 
believe, notwithstanding all that is said aboul 
progress, that we are at all more sensible tha; 
those fathers who made the Constitution of the 
United States, and laid the foundation of this 
great Government. Tliey gave us an example o: 
brotherhood; and when we look at all that con^ 
nects us, all that unites and makes us one people, 
how much more powerful would its influence seem 
to be to connect us together, than the question ol 



13 



slavery and anti-slavery to divide us? We are 
united by circumstances of which we cannot (iivofst 
ourstlves. We are united in language, ia blood, 
in countiy, in all the nieaioties ot t))e past, in ail 
the iiopos of the futuri". This i- our connection, 
leading and pointing to the briglitest des-tiny lliat 
ever awaited any people. Ail the unnumbered 
biep.eiiig:^ of tlic future are in full prospect; but 
there i^' this little, this comparatively small matter 
of contention, that we seem disposed to juirse up 
into continuid occasion for philippics and for rc- 
proaclies. This is not the riglit temper witli which 
to regard the subject. Ciiminatiou and recrimi- 
nation is not the way to strengthen our Union — 
that Union of brotherhood, of good will, of co- 
operation for all great nutiooal purposes, which 
our fathers formed. 

I was gialified to hear comparisons made of the 
mighty resoTirces of the different sections of this 
country. It was a prouJ exiiibition. The honor- 
able Senator from South ( aiolina [Mr. Hammo.ni>] 
gave us, in a very interesting and t.'loquentniiinner, 
the mighty resources of the South. They are be- 
yond estimate — beyond calculation. This is re- 
plied 10 by a gentleman from, the North, whogive.« 
us tlie mighty resources and the mightv power of 
New England and tlie nou-sIavehoUling States. 
Well, sir, if the c<mclusion whicli might be drawn 
from it was true, that each of those sictions would 
by itself nuike a mighty country and a country 
that any one of us might be proud of, what a 
magnificent country is made when we put it all 
together What a nuignificent abode Pu- man, 
such as the Almighty never gave to any other peo- 
ple, and never placed on the surface of this earth! 

It Svcms to me tlie most natural union in the 
world — the South, with her great and her ricli 
productions, whi e the North abounds with inge- 
nuity, labo , nieclianical skill, navigation, and com- 
merce. The Very diversity of our resources is the 
natural cause of union between us. It would out 
do fiT us all to make cotton, nor would it do for us 
all to work in your manufactories. Nature setms 
to hive organized here thi» country, adapted to a 
union of people North and South. Nature has 
given her sanction to the Union. Nature has 
tract d th.at Union, and you alone distuib it. Gen- 
tlemen, you alone disturb it by making this subject 
of .elavery the cau-^e of dissension. Ttie dissen- 
sion has been kept up, though we l)ut seldom come 
to any practical question that c.ills njion us to 
act on the sntjcct. Now, if wc were through with 
this petty Kansas affair, what a suuuaer sea of 
boiitidies^ expanse lies lii-fore us, where tliere is 
nothing but lepose. There is no other territory 
that you can di,-pute about in my lifi.-time, or the 
lifetinii' of any man here. This is the last point 
on which a controversy can probably be made. 
We have gone through many difficulties on this 
Bubjecf,. Now we have readied the lat of 't, 
the least of it. Let us settle this matter in 
peace; let us settle it in good temper; and I 
8-'e nothing ticfore us but a long period of repose, 
and, I hope, of mutual conciliation. Of one thing 
I am certain, that crimination and recrimination 
b.twecn the Noith and the South, the getting up 
and maintaining of sectional f'-eliui:, sectional [las- 
sion, sectional prejudices, can do no good to any 
section; and there is not one Senator here who 



does not recognize and feel all thia as much aa I 
do. I am certain of it. 

My vote on this subject, air, has nothing sec- 
tional in it. The only difbculty I have in voting 
is, that this is regarded by some as a sectional 
c|uestion; and I am o« one Me of that section, 
and I am voting for the other side of it, if we 
divide on it as a sectional question. Now, I do 
not regard it as a sectional question. My alle- 
giance is not to any particular section. I do not 
want to know any such thing as a section in my 
conduct here. I want to be governed by accnsti- 
tutional spirit, and a constitutioinil and a just 
principle, in all I do, no matter whether it relates 
to the North or to the South. I do not want to 
increase the sectionality which exists in the coun- 
try by placing myself or my vote upon it so far 
as regards this question. I want to wipe out that 
sectionali.im. I wish that no one here would vote 
upon it as a sectioual question. I do not. I vote 
upon it as a Senator of the United Sta'es of Amer- 
ica. That is my coiniiry, and my great country. 
The Constitution of the United States intended to 
wipe out all these lines of division and section- 
alism. It is we, we, that disturb our own Union. 
It is we that mnke sections; it is we that make 
sectional lines to divide and distract the country, 
whose Constitution, whose present interest, whose 
future hopes, all tend t^ unite us. 

There are some doctrines which have been ad- 
vanced here with which I disagree, and upon 
which I will briefly express my views. Some gen- 
tlemen have aigued, and t!i(^y have the authority 
of the President to sustain them, that the Kansas- 
Nebraska act gave all the authority that is usu- 
ally confer- ed by what is called an enabling act on 
tlie pt!ople of a Territory. I never ctuisidered in 
so. I do not believe it is to be considered so. Some 
gentlemen, on the other hand, maintain that, un- 
der the Kansas-Nebra.-ka act, tlie convention were 
bound to submit the constitution to the people for 
the populir suffrage ; indeed, that it is the right of 
the piople to have every convention submit every 
constitution to them. I do not a,Tee to that doc- 
triiic. Tiie people arc too sovereign to be required 
to do that. They can confer upon a convention 
the power to make a constitution that shall be good 
without reference to any other power. The sov- 
ereignty over the Territory is in this Government. 
It bel ngs to the people of the United States, one 
and all. The people of the States own it ; and 
they are the real sovereigns of the Territory, and 
wc, as their representatives. They have no more 
po*er in the Territory than we give. Tliey have 
no government but wlint we give. It is not in the 
nature of things that they should have. All squat- 
ter sovereignties, and sovereignties of all sorts, 
vanish before the sovereignty of the people of the 
United St ites. 

Hut the President says, in reference to this Kan- 
sas constitution, that although it contains a pro- 
vision that after 18(54 a convention may be called 
to change it, the poople can, nevei theless, change 
it before that time. That is to say, the people, by 
th'-ir "irresistible"' power can at any time, notwith- 
staniling the pro\isions of their constitution to the 
contrary, chniige it as they please. Sir, the Presi- 
dent of the United States is very liigh aulhorilj; 
but it is, in my humble judgment, a very dangerous 



14 



doctrine and a very untrue one. The people can- 
not bind themselves by a constitution ! I thought 
that was one of the great virtues and purposes ofa 
constitution. We admit them to be sovereign. 
Why cannot they make what sort ofa constitution 
they please ? The constitution which sovereignty 
makes, in all its parts and in all its purposes, must 
be the rule of conduct for all. It cannot be abol- 
ished, except in the manner prescribed and pointed 
out in the constitution itself, if any manner is pre- 
sciibed. 

If the Pre'sident's doctrine on this subject be 
true, what becomes of the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States? Instead of following the mode of amend- 
ment prescribed in the Constitution, the people, by 
their 'irresistible' power, may in any other manner, 
at any time, change the whole frame of our Govern- 
ment. There is not a State constitution in the 
Union that does not impose some restraint as to 
the manner of change. What Avould a constitution 
be if it were just as liable to change as any ordi- 
nary act of the Legislature? It would lose its 
character. Those who talk to the people about the 
unlimited and illimitable power they possess are 
teaching a dangerous doctiine. That is a sort of 
sovereignty wliich the people cannot exercise. It 
may be made very flattering to their ears, but it i? 
impracticable in the nature of things. It cannot 
be exercised at all. The people must exercise their 
sovereignty through agencies. They must exercise 
it through representatives and governments ; they 
only exercise it safely through constitutions. If 
they could not make constitutions bind themselves 
their sovereignty never would be safe. If it were 
not invested in a constitution, it would be con- 
stantly escaping into the hands of some of those 
gentlemen who could talk most eloquently to the 
people about their irresistible sovereignty. That 
would be the end of that sort of sovereignty in the 
people. 

The people must understand that their sover- 
eignty, their practical sovereignty, is to be exercised 



through representatives and delegates, over whom 
they are to hold the proper control ; and to hold 
that control, and to fix and make permanent and 
operative their sovereignty, they must put it in the 
form of a constitution. That is the only security for 
popular sovereignty. Therein it exists, and therein 
alone can it exist practically. It is not true that the 
people cannot bind themselves, and are not bound, 
by the restrictions of their constitution. They may 
rebel against their own constitution; they may 
violate their own law and constitution, just as they 
could violate the law or constitution of any other 
people; but it does not follow that, because they 
could do that, they have not created a politicals j 
obligation on themselves by a constitution only toy I 
amend that instrument in the guai-ded, temperate, 
gradual method which the constitution may have 
provided for and prescribed. 

Sir, I am sorry to have occupied the time of the 
Senate so long. I can say, with the President of 
the United States, that on this important occasion 
I have endeavored to do my duty, with a full sense 
of rny responsibility to my God and to my country. 
Under the conviction that the best results to be 
obtained under the present circumstances, unless 
some material amendment can be made to the bill, 
will be attained by rejecting this constitution, I 
shall give my vote against it ; but so anxious am I 
to conclude this subject, that I intend, before it is 
finally acted upon by the Senate, to propose an 
amendment. This would not be the proper time 
to offer it ; I am not prepared now to offer it : but 
the effect of it will be to admit Kansas into the 
Union upon condition that this constitution of hers 
be submitted to a fair vote' of the qualified elec- 
tors of Kansas, to be ratified by them ; and if so 
ratified, the President, on information of the fact, 
shall proclaim it a State of the Union without fur- 
ther proceedings; and, if it be not ratified, to 
have a new constitutional convention convened. 
My amendment will be an enabling act in effect, 
but admitting Kansas for the present. 



Mr. Crittenden's Rejoinder to Mr. Toombs. 



Mr. CRITTEXDEX. I purpose to occupy a few 
moments to correct a mistake which I believe is 
rendered necessary by the remarks of my friend 
fiom Georgia. I have listened to him with great 
pleasure, and have cause to thank him for much 
that he has said. 

I knew, sir, that Mr. Clay was not the author of 
the Miisouri compromise ; I knew that he did not 
draw the bill; but I knew from his own declara- 
tions in conversation, and in his speeches that he 
did approve aiid concur in its passage. He gave 
it his sanction. lie thought there was nothing 
unconstitutional in it. I have been brought up 
in the opinion that it was not only constitutional, but 
one of the most beneficial acts that had ever been 
passed by Congress. It produced you, sir, a reve- 
nue of peace and good-will among the people of 
the United States, and that is above all price. 
Whatever sanction it may have failed to derive 
fiODi the names of tht- great men who passed it, it 
has received abundantly fioni the people of the 
United States, who, for the thirty odd years that 
it remained on our statute book, gave v their ap- 
proval and support. During all that period it gave 
peace to the country. It was for that I valued it. 

I hailed that compromise when it was first made. 
I have cherished it ever since. It had become 
fixed iu my mind, as part and parcel of our politi- 
cal system. I regarded Mr. Clay, as did tho whole 
country, as entitled to the credit of that great 
measure. And it was for this t'lat his countrymen 
confericd upon him the proudest and the noblest 
of his titles — the pacificator of his country. 

Sir, I have not been able to cast away these 
impressions. I admit the SupremeCourt to be 
the great arbiter, as the gentleman iisseits, and 
while I differ from it, I do not the less admit its 
conslilutioual and supreme power iu all the matters 
that come within its juiisdiction, and I am not 
wanting in confidence and respect for it. But yet 
we cannot alwayjs yield up our long-settled convic- 
tions, even to the authority of that high tribunal. 
I find myself now in that condition, and I must be 
permitted to retain the opinion long established in 
my mind, that the Missouri compromisu was a con- 
stitutional act. * 

My friend [Mr. TooMiis] has said that some gen- 
tlemen seemed disposed to give no confidence 
whatever to the action of any of the Territorial 
Legislatures of Kansas until they fell into the 
hands of the Black Republicans, Certainly he 
cannot intend such an imputation for me? [.Mr. 
f TooMns signified by a shake of the head that he did 
not.] I regard it merely &^ tho Legislature of the 
Territory — the actual Legi^lalure. IIow its mem- 
bers may be divided in politics, I do not kncMv; nor 
do I care ; nor was it at all material for my pur- 
. pose. It is enough for me that it is the Legislature 



of the Territory, and that it appointed a vote to be 
taken upon this constitution on the 4th of January. 
The vote was taken, ai\d the result was as reported 
to us. I have heard nothing to impeach that vote, 
nor any single fact alleged against it. The result 
of it was a majority of ten thousand against the 
constitution. Certainly those ten thousand have 
at least as good a right to be claimed against it as 
the six thousand returned as having voted on the 
21st of December, have to be counted in favor of 
it. That was my object. It was to show that 
there was a majority against this instrument, and 
assuming all this action to be equally legitimate, 
the members of the convention hud no more right 
to order a vote to be taken by the people on any 
part of the constitution than the Territorial Leg- 
islature had to order an election to be taken 
on the whole constitution. Both proceeded 
fiom organized recognised bodies, tjne the Legis- 
l.iture, the other the convention. When, there- 
fore, the common appeal is made to us, and the 
constitution is brought before u.-', it seems to me 
that we ought equally to take into coj>sid< ration 
both these facts. Furthermore, I adverted to the 
evidence going to show that from the six thousand 
in favor ot the constitution there were many spu- 
rious and fraudulent votes to be deducted. 

Mr. President, I acknowledge that Ibrms (.T^ not 
only useful, but, in many cuse.-', necessary. I agree 
that if at an election twothird.H of the people stay 
away from mere apathy or negligence, the votes of 
those who do act, and do vote, must be eflectual, 
and must control. I agree, also, that the return 
is a necessary form, and that the revision of that 
return is subject only to the i)articular authority 
appointed lor it, and when that is done, there is an 
end of the case — because there is no further tri- 
bunal to which an appeal can be taken ; but I sup- 
posed and argued that when this constitution waa 
presented belbre us, the supreme power, called 
upon now to recognize the validity of these acts — 
called upon to recognize what was the will of the 
people, in re-pect to them, we have a right to look 
to all the evidence, as well to that which is fur- 
nished ia form as to that which impeauhes it for 
fraud. 

I have spoken on these conclusions, and I shall 
act on them in voting Ilgaill^t the acceptance of 
this Lecomj)toa constitution. My friend, [Mr. 
Xoo.Mits] I have no doubt, in perfect sincerity, 
regrets that my conclusions have forced me to 
this course ; but 1 have followed my convictions, 
and I mean to do my duty a.s I understand it. I 
coufe.'^s it is painful to me to diU'er witli such a 
friend on any occasion so important as the |)resent. 

Mr. President, I am not wanting, I think, iu 
those feelings of our nature which connect us witk 
our neighbors. Although we have a common coun- 



16 



try to look to, and ought to have a common patriot- 
ism which would embiace the whole, our natural af- 
fections and our natural feelings bind us more close- 
ly to those with whom we are more immediately as- 
sociated, to whom we are moie nearly assimilated in 
manners —customs, and institutions — aye, peculiar 
instituti ns. I am not wanting in those sympathies ; 
but what is my duty as one belonging to a particu- 
lar section, by his nativity, and by his residence — 
what is my duty when a great question of this sort 
comes up? What ia my duty to those neighbors, 
to whom by natural sympathies and affections I atn 
most bound ? Is it not my duty in this house of our 
common councils to give the best counsel and ad- 
vice I can, or am I to inquire whether this is to be 
regarded as a sectional question, and follow what- 
ever course is indicated by a majority of its sec- 
tional members? Is it not rather my duty to my 
friends to give them the best counsel I can ? I want 
to see the South always right. How am I to ac- 
complish that? By advising always what my best 
judgment thinks is right, and endeavoring to pre- 
vail upon her to take that course. Is not that my 
duty? Is not that my duty to my common coun- 
try, and more especially is it not my duty to th )se 
with whom circumstances more nearly connect me? 
I have done that. I should have been gratified if 
the South had taken the same view of this subject 
that I have. I am sure she would have lost noth- 
ing by it. Tie question of slavery is not in the 
case. I think there is not one gentleman here who 
entertains the hope that Kansas can ever be really 
a slave State. If it be made so, it will continue 
only for a moment, a little feverish moment, filled 
up with strife and angiy controversy. No gentle- 
man here believes it will really and permanently be 
a slave State. There is nothing then to be gained 
by the South, as I regai d the subject. The element 
of slavery is only thrown in for the purpose of 
arousing feelling on the one side or tho other. It 
is no real element in the question before us, be- 
cause no man has any hope that Kansas will be 
a slave Stale. We learn that from every souice. 
The hope of it was disclaimed before the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill was passed ; that view is now turned 
into conviction by all that has occurred since, and 
there is ncbody who deceives himself so much, or 
would deceive the South so much as to tell her 
that Kansas will be made a slave State by the 
adoption of this constitution, except it may be for 
that miserable and feverish period to which. I have 
alluded, and which would be filled up in a struggle 
that could serve only to exasperate parties and 
make the contest there more fierce than it has been. 
If the South could have taken the view of the 
case which I have taken, it seems to me it would 
have been better for her. Then she would say, 
" the South scorns to take advantage of the little 
circumstances that might enable her to press her 
claims upon a reluctant and unwilling people — 
press the claim to impose slavery against their 
will ; we snatch at no such accidental advantages, 
we see that the question is determined partly by 
climate, and more certainly and decisively by the 
majority of the people ; the determination has 
been against slavery; we stand up in our justice 
and in our honor always untarnished, and constitut- 
ing our great strength as Commonwealths and 
States ; and we say we will !nakc no strife about 



it. " If this element of slavery could be discharged 
out of the case, put out of our minds, put out of 
our debates, and we could look at this question 
as it is presented to us, I think there is no one 
here who would be willing to give his sanction to 
an instrument which is so stained with fraud, and 
so manifestly in violation of the rights of the 
people of Kansas. 

Why need we of the South be impatient and 
anxious to hasten the admission of Kansas into the 
Union ? Whatever constitution you put upon 
them now will not last ; but you will have two Sen- 
ators immediately from there. Should the South 
be in a hurry to have two more such Senators here 
as you would now get from there ? But these are 
small matters. If the South could view this sub- 
ject as I do, if they could have looked at this con- 
stitution and the circumstances from which it had 
its origin, and those which attend it, as I do, they 
would have acted the very part which I have in- 
dicated ; they would take no ignoble advantage ; 
they would occupy no ignoble position of standing 
upon little points and nice estoppels. No, sir, the 
South would say — it is in her character, in her 
spirit to say so — we go upon great principles, and 
we go for the truth. Occupying that position, she 
would have stood proudly erect, with justice and 
honor seated upon her brow. That is her natural 
and accustomed attitude, and in that attitude I 
love to contemplate her. 

Sir, gentlemen of the South from whom it is my 
misfortune to differ on this occasion, will do me 
great injustice to suppose that it was my purpose, 
in anything I have said, to question or impugn the 
purity of their motives. Tney but folh'w their 
honest convictions, as I follow mine. I have en- 
deavored to perform my duty as a Senator belong- 
ing to the same section ; my opinion and advice 
have been given frankly and independently; but, 
I hope without any presumption. I devoutly 
hope that whatever measure be adopted, though 
contrary to my opinion, may turn out to be that 
which is most beneficial to our country. I choose 
to be in the wrong, rather than that my country 
should suffer fioni my error. 

I am neither of the Democratic nor of the Repub- 
lican party. I wear no party shackles. I am here as 
the Senator of " Old Kentucky" — brave and noble 
old commonwealth. My ambition is to act in her 
spirit and by her inspiration. Idid"not come here 
to act in the character of a partisan. Long service 
and experience in public affairs have diverted me 
of much of the misconception, the prejudice and 
passion that belong to the parti an ; and upon 
lately taking my seat here, probably in the last 
term of ray public service, it was my intention and 
my hope to act rather the part of a patriot than 
that of a party man. 

I am a true son of the South; may prosperity 
fill all her borders, and sunshine forever rest upon 
her head. But for all this, I do not love the 
Union the less. I am a true citizen of the United 
States; I claim the whole of it as my great coun- 
try; and for the preservation of that Union which 
makes it so, I will always be ready to say and to 
do whatever in me lies. It is in this spirit, sir, 
that I have endeavored humbly to do my duty — 
my duty to the South, and my duty to the M-hole 
country. 



